York County Zoning Appeals Board Rejects Challenge to Silfab Project Process

The York County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-2 Thursday night to uphold planning staff’s rejection of a citizen’s request for a zoning code interpretation related to the ongoing Silfab Solar development in Fort Mill. The vote effectively ended John Lee’s attempt to question how county staff approved the project’s land use without what he believes to be proper compliance documentation.

Lee, who lives near the site at 7149 Logistics Lane, filed an appeal after staff denied his March 28 request for a zoning interpretation. The project, which involves solar panel manufacturing, is being built in a light industrial district — a land use classification the board had previously ruled did not permit such manufacturing.

“How could this project continue without a compliance approval from the zoning administrator for a new use — let alone a prohibited one?” Lee asked the board. “And all I’m trying to do is understand how this can all unfold and be in such a way that is completely unappealable. This this interpretation, this decision, this quote unquote approval, how can it exist without an application? ”

Lee argued that his March 28 request simply sought clarification on how the zoning code was being interpreted, specifically whether the project represented a change in use and whether zoning compliance approval was properly granted. He said he never received a complete response until May 13, and only after a clerical error sent the initial response to the wrong address.

In their written analysis and during the meeting, planning staff argued that Lee’s request didn’t qualify as a zoning interpretation because it didn’t identify specific ambiguous language within the zoning code. They maintained that his questions focused on a project decision — not unclear language in the code — and said the proper process to challenge a project would have been to file an administrative appeal shortly after the project was approved.

Staff further asserted that Lee’s questions were overly broad, hypothetical, and focused on enforcement — not interpretation.

The staff emphasized that Lee is not affiliated with the Silfab project and that the correct venue for challenging a project approval would have been through a timely appeal of an administrative decision — not a zoning interpretation. Staff also pointed to a 2023 economic development ordinance passed by County Council supporting the Silfab project, suggesting it provided a legislative foundation for the project’s continuation.

Board members asked Lee and staff detailed questions about definitions, zoning process timelines, and his attempts to get a response. One board member noted, “There is massive ambiguity… It might be the most ambiguous thing I’ve ever read.”

A Board member questioned whether Lee’s concern was with the project or broader zoning procedures. “Are your concerns limited to this specific project or are you raising broader concerns about how procedures are interpreted?” she asked.

Lee replied, “Certainly, I would hope that this never happens again… It feels incredibly unfair.”

During the meeting, board members asked numerous questions about the interpretation process, applicant eligibility, and whether the county had clearly communicated its rejection rationale. While some members expressed sympathy for Lee’s confusion and concerns about the project’s proximity to his home, a majority ultimately agreed with staff that his questions did not meet the legal criteria for an official interpretation.

Each of Lee’s three questions — concerning change of use, exemptions to compliance, and the authority of staff to approve zoning without Board of Zoning Appeals involvement — were rejected in separate 3-2 votes.

The board later entered executive session to receive legal advice but took no action upon returning. The Silfab project, already under construction, remains a contentious issue in Fort Mill, with neighbors raising concerns over chemical use, wastewater, and the approval process.